[fotbr]

Some states allow "one party consent" to recordings of communications (ie, phone calls). Extending that, as long as Company A is aware of FB's practices, then your wishes are irrelevant as far as the law is concerned.

I have no idea what California's laws are regarding the matter, or the laws governing any of the other participants. I'm just speaking in the general case, that some states allow it, and the argument that could be made.

[rsstack]

"California's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. California makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication, including a private conversation or telephone call, without the consent of all parties to the conversation."

[nerdponx]

Two-party consent is a funny thing. It's empowering to individuals in their interactions with corporations, but in this case it's clearly disempowering to individuals.

Is "asymmetric" one-party consent a thing in any jurisdiction?

[hellbannedguy]

Georgia is the only state where only one person needs consent to record.

I just heard that.

[LinuxBender]

California is 2-party-consent [1]

[1] - https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-recording-law

[philip1209]

Presumably - if states are defining 1-party vs. 2-party consent laws, then doesn't the 10th amendment imply that this matter shouldn't be handled federally?

[rossdavidh]

...unless the communications cross state lines, which in this case they mostly do.

[TrinaryWorksToo]

California is a two-party consent state for wiretapping laws.